New TLDs may face more GAC delay

[yanni]

From Domain Incite (http://domainincite.com/new-tlds-may-face-more-gac-delay/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29)

This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process.

This means that, post-Brussels, a second GAC consultation will be required before the ICANN board will be able to approve the Guidebook.

ICANN announcement. (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm)

[Rubber Duck]

In other words, if the Board does not act as a puppet to GAC and implement their views to the exclusion of every other constitency, then the process is deemed flawed.

In other words, consultation means doing as you are bloody well told!

QUOTE=yanni;174446]From Domain Incite (http://domainincite.com/new-tlds-may-face-more-gac-delay/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29)



ICANN announcement. (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm)[/QUOTE]

[555]

And how are IDN gTLD's for existing gTLD's have anything in common with this NEW gTLD's program? A few interest holders in the new gTLD process are going to continue to do all they can for both new gTLD's and IDN gTLD's to be grouped. Since it is grouped with IDN gTLD's, which are not here to enable greater TLD selection like the new gTLD's, but are a necessity, then they understand it is a very prized hostage that is being held/delayed to say the least.

[bwhhisc]

And how are IDN gTLD's for existing gTLD's have anything in common with this NEW gTLD's program? A few interest holders in the new gTLD process are going to continue to do all they can for both new gTLD's and IDN gTLD's to be grouped. Since it is grouped with IDN gTLD's, which are not here to enable greater TLD selection like the new gTLD's, but are a necessity, then they understand it is a very prized hostage that is being held/delayed to say the least.

Seems the "new" gTLD crowd is porkbarreling their wishes on the back of the idn.gTLD (com/net/org etc) horse.

[555]

Seems the "new" gTLD crowd is porkbarreling their wishes on the back of the idn.gTLD (com/net/org etc) horse.
The GAC should be concerned on how much money they're member governments where English isn't spoken aren't grossing to the country's economy thanks to this hostage situation.

[yanni]

We may very well see a separation of the two [igtlds - gtlds] in San Fran, resulting in the former going ahead and the latter staying behind for a little while longer.

Verisign wouldn't shell out 500k for no reason, and Clinton's appearance is pretty encouraging.

Or, it could just be wishful thinking on my part.

[yanni]

The GAC should be concerned on how much money they're member governments where English isn't spoken aren't grossing to the country's economy thanks to this hostage situation.

In this case, it's Verisign not grossing, not foreign govts.

[domainguru]

We may very well see a separation of the two [igtlds - gtlds] in San Fran, resulting in the former going ahead and the latter staying behind for a little while longer.

Verisign wouldn't shell out 500k for no reason, and Clinton's appearance is pretty encouraging.

Or, it could just be wishful thinking on my part.

People here have been talking about (i.e. hoping for) a separation for a long time. Any evidence that it will happen, or just wishful thinking? I unfortunately suspect the latter.

[bwhhisc]

We may very well see a separation of the two [igtlds - gtlds] in San Fran, resulting in the former going ahead and the latter staying behind for a little while longer. Verisign wouldn't shell out 500k for no reason, and Clinton's appearance is pretty encouraging. Or, it could just be wishful thinking on my part.

The 'new' gtld crowd may include some of those who benefit from delays in idn gtld, not to mention those with a political motive to establish their idn.cctld as far ahead of idn.idn (com/net). Russia is an example of where they now have 20:1 idn.cctld to idn.idn (com/net) and that number will increase to probably 40:1 one before they can implement aliasing for .com.

It really should be 2 seperate issues, the GAC/GNSO/ICANN draft policies from years ago (linked somewhere on this site) were layed out with the principle that idn.idn in cctld and gtld should be implemented in close order so that neither disadvantages the other. Hopefully someone can remind them of that agreement. :yes:

How about a "disadvantaged" discount for idn.com and idn.net at renewal time until they GTST. :help:

[yanni]

People here have been talking about (i.e. hoping for) a separation for a long time. Any evidence that it will happen, or just wishful thinking? I unfortunately suspect the latter.

At this point, wishful thinking, hence the Or, it could just be wishful thinking on my part. closing of my post.

All I'm doing at this time is follow the signs as I have no insider knowledge.

After ICANN announced it's going ahead with introducing the new gtlds, it will have to show something in San Fran. It is my contention that the GAC will not budge on their position.

ICANN will either ignore GAC and be faced with countless lawsuits by the big corps down the line or give in to GAC completely.

No one goes into a negotiation meeting, willing to give up their position 100 percent.
A logical compromise [based on my limited knowledge of this issue] would be to further delay the part that annoys the GAC and the IP lawyers until a workable solution is in place, and continue with the only part that no-one has objected to so far, which is the existing tld idn aliasing.

This way both sides are happy, and ICANN can save face by presenting another success to the world all the while keeping their Platinum Sponsor somewhat satisfied.

Again, this is just a personal opinion.

[domainguru]

At this point, wishful thinking, hence the closing of my post.

All I'm doing at this time is follow the signs as I have no insider knowledge.

After ICANN announced it's going ahead with introducing the new gtlds, it will have to show something in San Fran. It is my contention that the GAC will not budge on their position.

ICANN will either ignore GAC and be faced with countless lawsuits by the big corps down the line or give in to GAC completely.

No one goes into a negotiation meeting, willing to give up their position 100 percent.
A logical compromise [based on my limited knowledge of this issue] would be to further delay the part that annoys the GAC and the IP lawyers until a workable solution is in place, and continue with the only part that no-one has objected to so far, which is the existing tld idn aliasing.

This way both sides are happy, and ICANN can save face by presenting another success to the world all the while keeping their Platinum Sponsor somewhat satisfied.

Again, this is just a personal opinion.

This is just my personal opinion ....

I have never seen any evidence ICANN is interested in getting gTLD IDN.IDN to work in any particular timeframe. The 10-year renewal anniversary on our domains testifies to this.

ICANN has known about the potential (long) delays in the general gTLD expansion program for a long time.

So if ICANN wanted to separate the two processes in order to allow IDN gTLDs to be fast-tracked, they would have done so by now. And they haven't.

Never forget the country where nearly all this happens, and who is putting the most pressure on ICANN. It certainly ain't IDNers .................

I hope I am wrong and Bill Clinton (a) appears and (b) announces great things for us IDNers. I'm not holding my breath, particularly on the latter.

[squirrel]

http://gac.icann.org/system/files/Cartagena_Communique.pdf


Specific Points in Relation to New gTLD Application Processes
[...]
The GAC would advise the Board that:
1. The GAC considers that there are still outstanding issues regarding
the current procedure which include:
[...]
2. That the GAC will provide the Board at the earliest opportunity with
a list or "scorecard" of the issues which the GAC feels are still
outstanding and require additional discussion between the Board and
the GAC. These include:
[...]
3. That, in view of the Board's determination, reflected in its 23
November 2010 response to the GAC's comments on DAGv4 that it
cannot accept certain elements contained in the GAC advice, the GAC
assumes the Board is invoking the provisions in the ICANN Bylaws to
seek a mutually acceptable resolution of these differences. The GAC
looks forward to engaging in the discussions foreseen in the Bylaws to
attempt to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject
GAC advice, pending the development of an agreed formal approach.

[squirrel]

Personally I think ICANN is going to move forward.

The way I interpret the following passage : This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process. is simply a way of saying "we will not discuss the procedure per se, this should not become a procedural debate, etc."

and it makes sense, especially if they want to broadcast it live.

Call me overoptimistic but I think what's happening is textbook bylaws resolution process. ICANN wants to deal with the substance of their disagreement, not the procedure. If unresolved issues remain, they want those identified.. why ? probably because as per subsection 2(1)(k) of the Bylaws, ICANN needs to state the reasons why GAC advice was not followed.

[domainguru]

Personally I think ICANN is going to move forward.

The way I interpret the following passage : is simply a way of saying "we will not discuss the procedure per se, this should not become a procedural debate, etc."

and it makes sense, especially if they want to broadcast it live.

Call me overoptimistic but I think what's happening is textbook bylaws resolution process. ICANN wants to deal with the substance of their disagreement, not the procedure. If unresolved issues remain, they want those identified.. why ? probably because as per subsection 2(1)(k) of the Bylaws, ICANN needs to state the reasons why GAC advice was not followed.

Move forward, yes, but at ICANN pace. That is the scary part.

[Drewbert]

Do not forget that GAC is actually YOUR representation in ICANN. Find out the government dept responsible in YOUR country, and make write them a letter.

[Rubber Duck]

The GAC should be concerned on how much money they're member governments where English isn't spoken aren't grossing to the country's economy thanks to this hostage situation.

If they actually understood the extent to which the US was holding them hostage over this it would start WWIII.

[Rubber Duck]

Do not forget that GAC is actually YOUR representation in ICANN. Find out the government dept responsible in YOUR country, and make write them a letter.

I think you have a very naive understanding how democratic government actually works.

[Rubber Duck]

I actually consider this to be good reasoning. None of this has become known to ICANN since they appointed Clinton as the keynote. This suggests that they were fully aware of the situation and were still betting their reputation on being able to wrap this up in Silicon Valley.


Personally I think ICANN is going to move forward.

The way I interpret the following passage : is simply a way of saying "we will not discuss the procedure per se, this should not become a procedural debate, etc."

and it makes sense, especially if they want to broadcast it live.

Call me overoptimistic but I think what's happening is textbook bylaws resolution process. ICANN wants to deal with the substance of their disagreement, not the procedure. If unresolved issues remain, they want those identified.. why ? probably because as per subsection 2(1)(k) of the Bylaws, ICANN needs to state the reasons why GAC advice was not followed.

[squirrel]

Verisign's Q4 earnings conference call on Jan 27. I am not familiar enough with the financial world to say if 500 000$ is material enough to warrant a question or two from the analysts.. still we may get some hints as to what's coming in the next few months.

[squirrel]

None of this has become known to ICANN since they appointed Clinton as the keynote. This suggests that they were fully aware of the situation and were still betting their reputation on being able to wrap this up in Silicon Valley.

good point

[Rubber Duck]

good point

Or maybe they are just playing brinkmanship with the Obama administration.

Can Barak really afford to offend Bill if he hopes to gain that elusive second term?

[Drewbert]

I think you have a very naive understanding how democratic government actually works.

Well maybe. But I know some of the GAC representatives personally, or some of the people who have their ear. Many of them (who aren't political appointees - they're career bureaucrats) are very interested to hear from the people that write their paycheck. A few letters explaining reality can go a long way.

[Rubber Duck]

Well maybe. But I know some of the GAC representatives personally, or some of the people who have their ear. Many of them (who aren't political appointees - they're career bureaucrats) are very interested to hear from the people that write their paycheck. A few letters explaining reality can go a long way.

Personally, i think the case for keeping ICANN out of the clutches of the UN is getting weaker by the day. I know it might seem hard for many to believe, but it would probably be faster, more transparent, less wasteful, more accountable and less corrupt.

[Drewbert]

Hmmm. Unsure about that.

http://kierenmccarthy.com/2010/10/19/itu-plenipot-old-men-and-young-women-pp10/

[Rubber Duck]

" – he is also the most obstructive, unhelpful, out-of-touch and stubborn government representative I have ever come across. "

Sounds perfect for ICANN. When can he start?

[squirrel]

the plan is crystal clear now :

http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jan11-en.htm#5

via domainnamewire